The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-08-07

ton, for and against, with the aggre;
gate vote for representatives,, and
now only the vote Tor a convention,
not any against, is returned wrh the
names of the voters, and there Is to
be "a majority Of all c:psens en-;
titled to vote for representatives,
and not of all voting tor representa-
tives," as before. No PROVISION is
made for ascertaining, the fact
whether the required majority have
voted further than furnishing the
names of those voting Tor oonyen-
ton, presumably all others bein
taken against it, and We have pre-.
csely the Delaware difficulty OF 1892
over again, which, we have seen, was
remedied in 1881 in thai State by
an amendment. How, 10 kentucky,
the Secretary or other fuD ,tonaries
were to tell whether the names re-
turned as voting for coScention
were a majority Of those entitled to
vote for representatives, is not pointed
out, unless we assume that, as before
the change, it was TO be done by
simple comparison with the re-
turns of those voting NJ the same
election for representatives: Ii this
be the meaning the contrivance Is
precisely the same as before, aud the
only effect OF the amendment was to
make that uncertain which before
was certain. But now again for con-
venience, departing from the chro-
biological order, it appears that Ken
lucky, in 1850, cured this defect by
adding this: "And for the purpose
Of ascertaining whether q majority
OF those entitled TO vote for Repre-
sentatiyes did or did not vote lsr
calling q convention as above, the
General Assembly passing, the law
authorizing such vote shall provide
for ascertaining the nu eber OF citi-
zens entitled to vote foro'npresenta-
tives within the State. Thus toll
lowing again the example Of Della
ware in 1881, only authorizing the
Legislature to do generallythat which
the Delaware Constitution did IN
special way itself.
Next, Ohio, 1902, copies Tennessee
1896; Louisiana, 1872, copies Ken.
lucky 1899, and Mississippi, 1877,
aud Illinois, 1918, copy Tennessee
1896.
But in 1918, Connecticut, which
had got along very comfortably Tor
iorty-two years without any constitu-
ton, comes forward with an en-
tirely new plan Of amendment, which
has since become a iav0rlte model
with the constitution builders. That
was TO submit the amendments,
without the intervention OF a CON
vention, TO direct vote OF the peo-
pie, after being proposed by one
General Assembly and approved by
the next. IL requires az election Tor
that purpose, but whether at gen
eral election for other purposes or
! not the constitution does not say,
it being left to the town clerks to
present the same at town meeting
legally warned and held for any pur
pose" but presumably, the town
meeting could take place at any
time, in any town, whenever a meet
ing could legally assemble for that
purpose. But Il ia ";o appear, IN ?
manoer to be provided by law, that a
majority of the electors present at
such meetings shall have approved
moh amendments Alabama. in
1919, adopts this o Nv plan with i'm
portant notifications, the chief one
being that the election by the people
took place Immediately upon the
proposal of amendments by the Gen
eral Assembly without waiting ioI
another General Assembly TO ap
prove them, aud after their approya
| by the people there was 10 be ratiii
cation by the next General Assembly
But in subuitting the amendments
to the people the phraseology OF Ken
lucky, 1879, aud Tennessee, 1876
was applied. The election was u
be AT the next general election
which shall be held for representa-
lives" aud the returning officers wcr'
TO return TO the Secretary OF Stat
the names Of all those voting To-
representatives who have voted OF
such proposed amendments" an'
not as in Kentucky, 1893, 9TH,
names Of all those entitled 10 vot,
Tor representatives who have vote,
for calling a convention
Thus, tho Alabama convention
saw the Kentucky ambiguity o
. imperfcction Of emitting a seli.regis
, tering quality for the electoral bod
aud corrected IL, aud when II cam
10 define the electoral body IL use
the disputed words OF our existin
constitution taking them IRON Ken
lucky 1892 and Tennessee 1896, an
requires that il shall appear by Oh
, returns Just directed 10 be made tia
"a majority Of all the citizens G
this Safe, voting Tor representative
have voted in favor Of such propose
, amendments" etc. Everything b
this careful attention In Alabama !
made plain aud Ineligible. Main,
, $50, adopts he new Connection
i contrivanco and directs a vote on th
amendments at the next annual tow
meetings aud they are approved b
"a majority Of tho inhabitants yotin
I, on the question" Missouri, lS2l
. adheros to the plan Of the legislatiy
/, act.
But now comes New York, Isl
and there FIRST appear the dispute
, words OF our Tennessee Coustitutio
10 relation TO the time OF the cleo
: ton on amendments. IL seems I
have been determined not 10 coBhn
the submission Of the amendments I
general election for represents
: tiyes, as mostly the models did, whe
|, submitting a call for convention Q
& amendments directly, but 10 leay
that TO tho legislature TO rogula,,
. aud the considerations IN favor o
= that course are obvious, whatoy,
= may be said in favor OF the other.
provides then IL shall be the dut
= OF the Legislature 10 submit sue
y proposed amendment or amendment
y 10 the people in such manner aud I
| - A I A Il